Ontario Court Rules that Ontario Youth Cannot be mandated to get Covid-19 vaccine.
Hon. J. Christopher Corkery outlined very important justifications for his decision, including a reference to the Motherisk inquiry, a tragic case of “the science was wrong”. The consequence of, more than a decade long, flawed drug testing program at sick-kids hospital, and the inaccurate scientific results being accepted as “fact” in the courts for child protection and criminal cases, concluding in hundreds of wrongful convictions and/or terminating parental rights.
Below are some highlights of this incredible, precedent setting legal decision and the link is also below for reference of the full court ruling.
[39] I also share the concerns expressed by Pazaratz J. with respect to the court taking judicial notice of government information. In a recent case, similar to this case, he makes several critical observations:
[67] Why should we be so reluctant to take judicial notice that the government is always right?
a. Did the Motherisk inquiry teach us nothing about blind deference to “experts”? Thousands of child protection cases were tainted – and lives potentially ruined – because year after year courts routinely accepted and acted upon substance abuse testing which turned out to be incompetent.
b. What about the Residential School system? For decades the government assured us that taking Indigenous children away – and being wilfully blind to their abuse – was the right thing to do. We’re still finding children’s bodies.
c. How about sterilizing Eskimo women? The same thing. The government knew best.
d. Japanese and Chinese internment camps during World War Two? The government told us it was an emergency and had to be done. Emergencies can be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong.
e. Few people remember Thalidomide. It was an experimental drug approved by Canada and countries throughout the world in the late 1950’s. It was supposed to treat cancer and some skin conditions. Instead it caused thousands of birth defects and dead babies before it was withdrawn from the market. But for a period of time government experts said it was perfectly safe.
f. On social issues the government has fared no better. For more than a century, courts took judicial notice of the fact that it was ridiculous to think two people of the same sex could get married. At any given moment, how many active complaints are before the courts across the Country, alleging government breaches of Charter Rights? These are vitally important debates which need to be fully canvassed.
g. The list of grievous government mistakes and miscalculations is both endless and notorious. Catching and correcting those mistakes is one of the most important functions of an independent judiciary.
h. And throughout history, the people who held government to account have always been regarded as heroes – not subversives.
i. When our government serially pays out billions of dollars to apologize for unthinkable historic violations of human rights and security – how can we possibly presume that today’s government “experts” are infallible?
j. Nobody is infallible.
k. And nobody who controls other people’s lives – children’s lives – should be beyond scrutiny, or impervious to review.
[40] The science relating to COVID-19 is developing. The “facts” are changing:
[68] As well, how can you take judicial notice of a moving target?
a. During the past two years of the pandemic, governments around the world – and within Canada – have constantly changed their health directives about what we should or shouldn’t be doing. What works and what doesn’t.
b. And the changes and uncertainty are accelerating with each passing newscast. Not a day goes by that we don’t hear about COVID policies changing and restrictions being lifted.
c. Government experts sound so sure of themselves in recommending the current vaccines.
d. But they were equally sure when they told us to line up for AstraZeneca. Now they don’t even mention that word.
e. Even Pfizer has changed its mind. It recently approved vaccines for kids under five. Then more recently the company changed its mind.
f. None of this is meant as a criticism. Everyone is doing their best with a new and constantly evolving health crisis.
g. But how can judges take judicial notice of “facts” where there’s no consensus or consistency?
[41] The implications of a vaccine order including future doses must be considered:
[69] And then we have the issue of delegation.
a. As with almost all these vaccine motions, the father asks for an order that his children receive the current COVID vaccine “and all recommended booster vaccines.”
b. Which recommended booster vaccines?
c. When?
d. How many?
e. What will they contain?
f. Who will decide?
g. Will there be any opportunity for future judicial oversight, or will this simply be a forever commitment controlled by the government?
h. What are the health implications if children receive the current vaccine, but skip some or all of the boosters?
i. What future COVID variant will the boosters guard against? We already seem to be using the Delta vaccine to fight the Omicron variant. Will future boosters continue our pattern of using old medicine to fight new viruses?
j. These are all valid questions, requiring answers which are currently unavailable.
k. It is improper for the court to pre-determine future medical treatments at unknown times, in unknown circumstances, with decision making authority delegated to unknown persons.
l. If you can’t take judicial notice of the present, you can’t take judicial notice of the future.
Source: www.canlii.org
